Friday, 3 April 2015

Careers are often built on lifetime commitment to particular phases of evidence. But if the evidence changes, it is absolutely critical for public trust in the integrity of public health that we acknowledge the facts have changed and, accordingly, that we have changed our minds too.

[...]

Two illustrations of the advance of junk and low-quality science are the resilience and influence of climate change denialism, and the current efforts by e-cigarette interest groups to claim that e-cigarettes have revolutionary potential to make smoking history.

The interest groups behind these two major issues are succeeding in building momentum that may spread to challenge decades of public health and safety legislation.

So, erm, 'experts' must change if the evidence changes, but e-cigarettes threaten salaries and decades of lazy, policy-driven dogma, so they must be fought. Got it.

Further on, lesson 7 speaks of the importance of people in his profession listening to the public.

Ordinary people can make amazing advocates, and we should work with them far more. They bring a compelling authenticity to an issue.

While Lesson 8 stresses the importance of social media and engaging with people.

The internet has utterly revolutionised our lives. And utterly transformed advocacy. There are simply massive global participation rates in social media. Anyone in public health who is not part of this is the equivalent of a scholar in the Gutenberg era who declined to show interest in the potential of books.

All of which is very strange. You see, he is preaching this sage advice to up and coming public health advocates, but does the very opposite himself, as he boasted in January.

Blocking is a bit like putting a sticker on your mailbox saying “no junk mail accepted”, except that unlike with junk mail, it works!

The concept of an internet troll is unavoidably subjective: what one person regards as hostile or inflammatory can be genuinely intended by the sender as an attempt to engage in debate. But having a Twitter account is not an obligation to engage with anyone seeking to do this

So what Chappers is saying is that social media is brilliant for engaging with the public, and ordinary people should be listened to. Except if the ordinary people disagree with his beliefs, in which case shut down social media avenues of engagement and avoid contact at all costs.

12 comments:

Crikey - Chapman has a very weird view of the people who disagree with his particular brand of authoritarian public health policy. One of the 'e-cigarette interest groups' peddling 'junk and low quality science' turns out to be the Royal College of Physicians, which concluded in its major report on tobacco harm reduction in 2007:

"This report makes the case for harm reduction strategies to protect smokers. It demonstrates that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved".

According to Professor Chapman "Challenging and confronting low-grade and self-interested evidence from such forces will never be more important."

Professor John Britton, Chair of the RCP Tobacco Working Group and Director of the UK Centre on Tobacco and Alcohol Studies must be terrified, because in 2014, the RCP issued its e-cigarette policy statement:

"On the basis of available evidence, the Royal College of Physicians believes that e-cigarettes could lead to significant falls in the prevalence of smoking in the UK, prevent many deaths and episodes of serious illness, and help to reduce the social inequalities in health that tobacco smoking currently exacerbates".

He is totally and utterly deluded, a narcissist that believes he is above all others. What he and his ilk do not seem to understand, is that he, and they, will die, just like everyone else, its sad that people like Chapman have been able to harm so many people, with his lies, hypocrisy, and arrogance, on his journey to the grave.

<"The interest groups behind these two major issues are succeeding in building momentum that may spread to challenge decades of public health and safety legislation.">

As for this bit of arrogant nonsense, if those in "public health" had gone down the road of truth, and based policy on actual risk, and good science based evidence, they would have no problem at all with gaining public support. However, they chose the road of lies and exaggerations and a belief that "ordinary people" are stupid, (this is a narcissistic trait that Chapman has in spades), ignoring the reality, and the fact that most "ordinary people" are a great deal more intelligent than most of those in "public health", and don't have the burden of being blinded by an ideology that stems from superstition, and an immoral desire for power and control at any cost, (the cost being the death and suffering of others, to suit this ideology).

What a worry for Chapman, those "ordinary people" are exposing the lies coming from tobacco control, along with scientists, researchers, and medical and health professionals, that have integrity, (something Chapman cannot understand, because he doesn't possess), and are using social media far more effectively to get the truth across to other "ordinary people", without any support or payment from governments, or global corporations. Its called grassroots campaigning Simon, and it will be the downfall of people like you.

hmmm true, but I think Chapman is worse than just insane, he is knowingly a liar, and lies out of self interest, and narcissism, rather than just insanity. He big notes himself by latching onto a controversial subject, and pretending he is some sort of expert. He is simply a sociologist, that likes to get his face seen, and his opinions printed.

He spouts words for effect, not because there is any evidence backing up his opinions. He gives the appearance that people are in agreement with him, because he blocks or ignores any dissent, or dissenters. He surrounds himself with sycophants, who echo his opinions in a closed little world of academics. He is a hypocrite of the highest order.